Monday, November 29, 2010
Leangains Helped Me Earn My IFBB Pro Card
10:46 AM | Posted by
Unknown |
Edit Post
Edit Post
Actually, "amazing" is a huge understatement, as she won her class in the 2010 NPC Nationals (Figure) and earned an IFBB Pro Card.
This makes Danielle the first American "professional" Figure competitor who uses Leangains (as far as I know).
We need people like Danielle in the health and fitness community - people who aren't afraid to go against the mainstream. Why? Their success motivates others to change. Bodybuilders and fitness competitors tend to be very locked in their thought processes when it comes to nutrition. They're usually slaves to diet myths and these superstitions dictate how they approach contest dieting.
The problem is not that the "6-meals-a-day"-approach doesn't work, because it does for some, but that it just isn't right for everybody. And if people are afraid to experiment due to some nonsensical belief that doing this or that will (insert here: "slow down metabolism"/"cause muscle loss"/"prevent fat loss", etc.), then clinging on to it will prevent them from reaching their goals.
In my own case, I've talked about how I couldn't attain my goals when I was obsessively eating every 2-3rd hour, thinking breakfast was crucial and trying to avoid eating in the evening. These behaviors were "forced" on me - they did not exist due to personal preference.
When it slowly dawned on me that my behavior or diet had no scientific basis, that eating every 2-3rd hour did not yield any metabolic boost and so forth, I left it all behind and switched to something that felt right with me.
Unfortunately, most people never find the truths about the diet dogma that permeates the fitness and health mainstream and that's a shame.
Enough of my ranting, here's Danielle's story.
Leangains helped me earn my IFBB Pro Card
"I am proud to say that I just earned my IFBB Pro Card in Figure at the 2010 NPC Nationals in Atlanta, GA. This was my 3rd Figure show and I have learned a lot through these couple contest preps. I have been a personal trainer since I got my ISSA Certification is 2007. It has been and continues to be a journey of constant learning and growing."
"My 2nd Figure show was the 2010 Arnold Amateur. After this show I realized that eating every 2 hours had made me a little nutty. That constant eating was making me constantly think about food. I was spending way too much time with my mind occupied on food and there were more important things in life that I needed to focus on. So I began researching and found Eat Stop Eat."
Danielle three weeks out and 115 lbs.
"Eat Stop Eat is a great book and I began implementing the two 24 hour fasts per week into my lifestyle. This totally helped me break the constant need to eat. I found it to be very freeing. Then when I was getting ready to start my next prep, I began doing more research into other ways of fasting – and I found Leangains."
"I took what I had learned about my diet from previous shows – as to what works for me, and used that along with fasting 14-16 hours per day, Leangains style. I quickly realized how much less stress this was."
"Being a busy mom, it’s so nice to not have to worry about eating right away in the morning. I have my food packed and I eat at work. Also I’m not hungry until later now, so I don’t even think about it."
Danielle stole the show! Fantastic physique. Notice how she looks just perfect and healthy, without the emaciated and "overdieted" look that some competitors have on stage. She weighed in at 108 lbs.
"Currently I am preparing for my first Pro Show – the Kentucky Muscle. I am using the same diet, fasting and training regiment as I did for my last show. I am so thankful to have found Leangains! It has made these preparations so much easier – and not to mention my results have been incredible. When I won my Pro Card, I came in 5 pounds lighter than my previous shows. Not only was I lighter, but leaner and tighter."
Danielle placed 16 out of 28 in the Kentucky Muscle Pro, which is great. Keep in mind that the competition is crushing at that level. Not to mention that doing two shows back to back is very challenging and tough on your body.
Let's wish Danielle all the best for future competitions. People need role models like Danielle, as they are living proof that you can win major fitness and bodybuilding competitions without becoming a slave to Tupperware-containers.
By the way, here's a picture of Danielle from last year, shortly after her pregnancy at 150 lbs:
Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Goes to show what kind of amazing change people are capable with determination, consistency and the right diet.
Check out the success stories, or clients, on this site for more examples of people that have gone through all sorts of radical transformations. And you will see more examples of people placing or winning major fitness and bodybuilding competitions in the near future. In the meantime, here are a few examples of fitness and bodybuilding competitors that uses the Leangains approach, all of them featured on this site at one point or another:
Andreaz Engström (Also see: "Leangains Pre-Contest Training".)
Kristine Weber
David Höök
Seth Ronland
Robert Nilsson
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Cheat Day Strategies For A Hedonist
5:52 PM | Posted by
Unknown |
Edit Post
Edit Post
The key to damage control during ad libitum ("at one's pleasure") eating sprees lies not only in how much you eat but also with the choice of macronutrients. Food combination voodoo? No, just pure facts based on nutrient metabolism and science.
The question is also how to quickly get back on track for there is no doubt that big eaters can eat thousands of surplus calories that do lead to fat gain and post-holiday bloat. One of the "secrets" to maintaining low body fat while still being able to enjoy wild excess from time to time is therefore to make a quick turnaround in the days after.
Last weekend I ate mounds of porter beef, stuffed goose and cheesecake. Ah, how I love such days of unfettered hedonism.
Cheat days and Refeeds
In this article I'll be using "cheat day" and "feasts" interchangeably but they are both synonyms for short-term overfeeding of various durations and magnitudes. The same general principles will apply, more or less. A "refeed" is often used in the context of a structured diet approach. It tends to be more strict and planned in terms of macronutrient composition (high-carb, low-fat.)
While I will discuss refeeds in brief, this article will mainly discuss overfeeding of a mixed diet - that is, what you should take into consideration on Thanksgiving, at the Christmas dinner table, or any other occasion where you will be presented with lots of tasty foods.
While I will discuss refeeds in brief, this article will mainly discuss overfeeding of a mixed diet - that is, what you should take into consideration on Thanksgiving, at the Christmas dinner table, or any other occasion where you will be presented with lots of tasty foods.
My plan is not to tell you exactly what to eat or how much of it - that would be absurd. I don't encourage someone to count calories on Thanksgiving Day or similar such occasions. Instead, I'll talk about some factors that will determine how much fat you end up putting on and how you can potentially reduce the time spent making up for your splurging.
First, let's look at the general effects of overfeeding and do some myth debunking in the process.
Effects of Overfeeding
First, let's look at the general effects of overfeeding and do some myth debunking in the process.
Effects of Overfeeding
I tend to look at cheat days and feasts mostly as psychological relief and fun, but you'll often see some overly optimistic claims about cheat days being made in the fitness community; how it boosts your metabolic rate and tricks your body into "fat burning mode" for the rest of the week. There's some truth to this, but the real impact of cheat days are exaggerated if you look at the numbers you're dealing with.
Studies on overfeeding shows that metabolic rate typically increases about 6-8% for up to 24 hours after feeding. There's also large differences in between individuals, illustrated by the fact that the magnitude of the increase ranges from 3-10%. Those prone to obesity ("thrifty" phenotypes) tend to be in the lower range (3%), while the naturally lean ("spendthrifty" phenotype) tend to be in the upper range (10%). Either way, from a fat loss perspective it's not really justified to eat thousands of surplus calories to burn a few hundred calories extra.
The other argument, about tricking your body into fat-loss mode, usually alludes to the effect of overfeeding carbs on leptin. For a lean person, or for someone one a prolonged dieting stint, low leptin is an issue. This hormone, the king of hunger regulation, controls metabolic rate, appetite, motivation and libido, among other things. Leptin drops whenever your body senses a calorie deficit and when fat mass is lost.
The reverse happens when your body senses a calorie surplus. A surplus temporarily boosts leptin, which leads to downstream effects on fat oxidation, thyroid, dopamine and testosterone. In the context of dieting, refeeds are therefore beneficial.
However, similar to the effects of overfeeding on metabolic rate, a leptin-boost is also rather transient and drops again once you resume your diet and your body senses the deficit. It's for this reason I prefer to use frequent but moderate overfeeding, or refeeds, as part of the Leangains approach. Usually in conjunction with weight training to take advantage of the anabolic effects.
What macronutrient causes the greatest boost in leptin calorie per calorie? The hierarchy looks like this:
1. Carbohydrate. (Glucose - not sucrose or fructose.)
2. Protein. Glucose is superior to protein, but I suspect it might be a better choice to sucrose or fructose. (I'm quite sure that protein hasn't been compared to sucrose and fructose, but I'll look into it just in case.)
3. Dietary fat.
4. Alcohol. Ethanol has not been directly compared to the other macronutrients. However, the effect is a negative one. While one study actually found a positive effect on leptin, most studies point towards an inhibitory effect. Strangely, a reverse effect has been seen in women from red wine. I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that alcohol consumption is associated with lower body weights in women but not men. I'll have to look into that.
Due to the superior effects of carbs on leptin, and leptin's downstream effects on metabolism and anabolic hormones, a high-carb, moderate-protein and low-fat refeed is traditionally recommended for dieting purposes.
Lyle Mcdonald has written a great deal on this topic, most extensively in "The Ultimate Diet 2.0." Though I am no fan of the diet itself, the book is a tremendous resource for anyone interested in the physiology of dieting and its impact on various hormonal parameters.
Lyle has also written a lengthy and detailed article series on leptin. I highly recommend it if this topic piques your interest: "Body Weight Regulation: Leptin Part 1."
However, a low-fat, high-carb refeed is obviously not so doable during Thanksgiving Day, Christmas, or any other such occasions. A few different factors should be taken into account on cheat days and feasts.
Rest assured that I have documented my recent cheesecake mastery in great detail. This time I used an ancient and dark technique that is not to be taken lightly. I'll tell you more about it in the near future.
Nutrient Metabolism: A Quick Primer
This is a quick primer on nutrient metabolism, as it will help you understand some of the concepts discussed later on.
The easiest way to think about nutrient metabolism is in terms of the Respiratory Quotient (RQ) and insulin. They are associated - when insulin is high, RQ is high, and vice versa. Here's a quote from "Intermittent Fasting and Stubborn Body Fat":
"After you eat, insulin and fatty acids are elevated. You are in the fed state and there's zero fat burning going on. Your body is relying completely on glucose oxidation during the hours following the meal."
This doesn't mean that you'll be burning more body fat if you follow a low-carb high fat diet, or that you'll never burn fat on high-carb diets. In energy balance, 24-hour RQ is reflective of the macrocomposition of the diet rather than fat gain or fat loss per se. Dietary fat has insulin-independent storage mechanisms (ASP) and "fat balance" (net storage of dietary fat) is primarily dictated by total calorie intake at the end of the day. The time course and trend in substrate metabolism will be different dependent of the carb:fat-ratio, but not the net effect.
Key point
Overfeeding elevates RQ for several hours - up to a day even - and indicates that glucose metabolism is dominant. Since glucose metabolism is high, fat burning is low or insignificant. This metabolic state allows net storage of dietary fat. Carbs, protein and alcohol all elevate RQ and affects fat burning negatively. Dietary fat does not affect RQ but has insulin-independent ways of getting into fat cells.
Knowing this is, are there some ways to limit fat gain in mixed-diet overfeeding or is it all about calories? To answer this, let's look at the energy costs for fat storage of various macronutrients.
Knowing this is, are there some ways to limit fat gain in mixed-diet overfeeding or is it all about calories? To answer this, let's look at the energy costs for fat storage of various macronutrients.
Energy Cost of Fat Storage: The Macronutrient Hierarchy
During overfeeding, surplus calories are stored as fat with a great deal of varying efficacy.
(From most likely to be stored as fat in adipose tissue during overfeeding to least likely.)
1. Dietary fat.
The energy cost for storage of dietary fat is minimal (0-2% depending on saturation.)
2. Carbohydrate.
The conversion of carbs to fat, de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is hardly significant in humans and usually only occurs when glycogen stores are saturated (i.e. prolonged high-carb overfeeding). This does not matter much in practical terms, as there will be plenty of dietary fat in mixed-diet overfeeding. Carbs promote fat gain by reducing fat oxidation, as explained before. There's some variance between individuals here, based on genetics, metabolic state and habitual diet-patterns. Enzymes that modulate DNL are up-regulated in habitual high-carb diets and in the obese. Another factor that play a role is insulin sensitivity. There are similar individual aspects to the storage of dietary fat as well (mediated by LPL and ASP.)
In metabolically healthy humans, the energy cost for DNL is approximately 25%. In practical terms, this means that 3 out of 4 calories can be used for fat synthesis once a "carbohydrate surplus" is achieved (after saturated glycogen stores). Given that glycogen stores are never full in conditions of energy balance, people have a large "carb-sink" to use up before carbs contribute to fat gain directly. (Until then, the effect of carbs is indirect via suppression of fat metabolism. Am I being redundant yet?)
The above is in particular reference to glucose; sucrose and fructose are more lipogenic due to some differences in metabolic pathways. Fructose do not go to muscle glycogen stores, but to liver glycogen - and this glycogen depot is significantly smaller than muscle glycogen. One study comparing DNL from glucose and sucrose overfeeding in lean and obese people, showed DNL to be 10% and 20% higher respectively after the sucrose-experiment.*
* From results: "The type of carbohydrate overfeeding (sucrose or glucose) had no significant effect on de novo lipogenesis in either subject group." Which means that the difference (10-20%) was not enough to be deemed significant from a scientific standpoint. Fructose-overfeeding has not be compared to glucose in a controlled study, but judging from this study, DNL would likely be substantial (sucrose is half fructose, half glucose)
3. Protein and alcohol.
Key point
This is a complicated topic to address in real life terms, as most people do not eat "protein" and "carbs" - they eat food, and food composition matters greatly. While protein is clearly superior to both fat and carbs, a whey shake likely provides less satiety on a calorie-per-calorie basis than - for example - an equicaloric amount of fibrous veggies, even though the former is lower in protein and higher in carbs. Similarly, an equicaloric amount of steak and whole eggs is more satiating in both the long- and short-term than chicken and rice.
Adding to that, there's a good measure of difference in between individuals, as evidenced with the varying amounts of success people have with high or low-carb diets respectively.
Further complicating the issue, there's the "hedonic" aspect to consider. Simply put, a tasty and/or sweet protein, carb, or fat-based meal might affect how much you end up eating.
With that in mind, here's what research shows.
Protein is superior to carbs and fat intake in both short-term and long-term hunger suppression. This seems to be related to not only a stronger effect on appetite-regulating hormones (i.e. ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1), but also to its high TEF.
2. Carbs and fat.
3. Alcohol.
Key point
1. Don't stress it.
2. Create a calorie buffer.
Protein fluff; I mistakenly wrote that you'd need casein or milk-protein isolate for this, but people report getting respectable fluffs with some whey protein brands as well. Give it a go - you'll love it.
3. Protein priority.
4. Limit choices, not amounts.
In metabolically healthy humans, the energy cost for DNL is approximately 25%. In practical terms, this means that 3 out of 4 calories can be used for fat synthesis once a "carbohydrate surplus" is achieved (after saturated glycogen stores). Given that glycogen stores are never full in conditions of energy balance, people have a large "carb-sink" to use up before carbs contribute to fat gain directly. (Until then, the effect of carbs is indirect via suppression of fat metabolism. Am I being redundant yet?)
The above is in particular reference to glucose; sucrose and fructose are more lipogenic due to some differences in metabolic pathways. Fructose do not go to muscle glycogen stores, but to liver glycogen - and this glycogen depot is significantly smaller than muscle glycogen. One study comparing DNL from glucose and sucrose overfeeding in lean and obese people, showed DNL to be 10% and 20% higher respectively after the sucrose-experiment.*
* From results: "The type of carbohydrate overfeeding (sucrose or glucose) had no significant effect on de novo lipogenesis in either subject group." Which means that the difference (10-20%) was not enough to be deemed significant from a scientific standpoint. Fructose-overfeeding has not be compared to glucose in a controlled study, but judging from this study, DNL would likely be substantial (sucrose is half fructose, half glucose)
3. Protein and alcohol.
The energy cost for storage of amino acids and ethanol as fat are very hard to quantify for methodological, biochemical and (in the case of ethanol), ethical reasons. No controlled studies has been performed. However, it's safe to conclude that these two substrates serve as very poor precursors for fatty acid synthesis for a few different reasons.
First of all, the thermic effect of the separate macronutrients is 20-30% for protein, ~5% for carbohydrate, and 0–3% for fat. Total TEF is generally said to be 10% of total calorie intake, but this number is for the standard American diet, which is low in protein, relatively speaking.TEF for alcohol is harder to estimate, as values range between 10-30% in various studies. I talked about alcohol and TEF in "The Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth":
"Alcohol is labeled as 7.1 calories per gram, but the real value is more along the lines of 5.7 calories due to the thermic effect of food (TEF) which is 20% of the ingested calories. This makes the TEF of alcohol a close second to protein (20-30% depending on amino acid composition)."
In a similar vein, the real caloric value of protein would be closer to 3 kcal/g and not 4 kcal/g as it's currently labelled. Indeed, arguments that we revamp nutritional labeling to more closely match the true metabolic impact by various macronutrients has been made. Livesey proposed that protein should be counted as 3.2 kcal/g, for example.
Further complicating the issue in regards to quantifying fat synthesis from protein is the amino acid composition of the protein consumed, as it varies depending on the protein source. Amino acids are either glucogenic, ketogenic, or both, and use different metabolic pathways for fat synthesis. For example, a glucogenic amino acid must first be converted to glucose (de novo gluconegenesis) once it can contribute to fat synthesis via de novo lipogenesis, while a ketogenic amino acid can contribute via a more direct pathway (via acetyl-CoA).
I might revisit this topic again some day, as I've discussed it with some smart biochemists, but the key point here is that protein cannot contribute to fat gain directly to any meaningful degree. Even in highly artificial scenarios, such as overfeeding thousands of calories of pure protein, would yield fat gain that is a lot less than what's estimated from traditional formulas (i.e. 700 calorie surplus of fat or carbs = +0.1 kg weight gain is not true for a protein surplus).
Similar to carbohydrate, protein and alcohol act similarly as carbs in regards to metabolism. That is, they blunt fat oxidation. However, while carbs can contribute to fat gain directly once glycogen stores are full, protein and ethanol are unlikely to do so. (Ethanol metabolism was explained in detail in "The Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth".)
First of all, the thermic effect of the separate macronutrients is 20-30% for protein, ~5% for carbohydrate, and 0–3% for fat. Total TEF is generally said to be 10% of total calorie intake, but this number is for the standard American diet, which is low in protein, relatively speaking.TEF for alcohol is harder to estimate, as values range between 10-30% in various studies. I talked about alcohol and TEF in "The Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth":
"Alcohol is labeled as 7.1 calories per gram, but the real value is more along the lines of 5.7 calories due to the thermic effect of food (TEF) which is 20% of the ingested calories. This makes the TEF of alcohol a close second to protein (20-30% depending on amino acid composition)."
In a similar vein, the real caloric value of protein would be closer to 3 kcal/g and not 4 kcal/g as it's currently labelled. Indeed, arguments that we revamp nutritional labeling to more closely match the true metabolic impact by various macronutrients has been made. Livesey proposed that protein should be counted as 3.2 kcal/g, for example.
Further complicating the issue in regards to quantifying fat synthesis from protein is the amino acid composition of the protein consumed, as it varies depending on the protein source. Amino acids are either glucogenic, ketogenic, or both, and use different metabolic pathways for fat synthesis. For example, a glucogenic amino acid must first be converted to glucose (de novo gluconegenesis) once it can contribute to fat synthesis via de novo lipogenesis, while a ketogenic amino acid can contribute via a more direct pathway (via acetyl-CoA).
I might revisit this topic again some day, as I've discussed it with some smart biochemists, but the key point here is that protein cannot contribute to fat gain directly to any meaningful degree. Even in highly artificial scenarios, such as overfeeding thousands of calories of pure protein, would yield fat gain that is a lot less than what's estimated from traditional formulas (i.e. 700 calorie surplus of fat or carbs = +0.1 kg weight gain is not true for a protein surplus).
Similar to carbohydrate, protein and alcohol act similarly as carbs in regards to metabolism. That is, they blunt fat oxidation. However, while carbs can contribute to fat gain directly once glycogen stores are full, protein and ethanol are unlikely to do so. (Ethanol metabolism was explained in detail in "The Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth".)
Key point
In mixed-diet overfeeding, macrocomposition matters. In comparing two diets at the same calorie intake - say 5000 calories - the one with the highest percentage of calories from protein yields the least fat gain. This is mainly explained by TEF and the poor efficacy with which protein can contribute directly to fat synthesis.
What other factors need to be considered for someone who wants to minimize fat gain during overfeeding?
Satiety: Effects of Macronutrients
What other factors need to be considered for someone who wants to minimize fat gain during overfeeding?
Satiety: Effects of Macronutrients
This is a complicated topic to address in real life terms, as most people do not eat "protein" and "carbs" - they eat food, and food composition matters greatly. While protein is clearly superior to both fat and carbs, a whey shake likely provides less satiety on a calorie-per-calorie basis than - for example - an equicaloric amount of fibrous veggies, even though the former is lower in protein and higher in carbs. Similarly, an equicaloric amount of steak and whole eggs is more satiating in both the long- and short-term than chicken and rice.
Adding to that, there's a good measure of difference in between individuals, as evidenced with the varying amounts of success people have with high or low-carb diets respectively.
Further complicating the issue, there's the "hedonic" aspect to consider. Simply put, a tasty and/or sweet protein, carb, or fat-based meal might affect how much you end up eating.
With that in mind, here's what research shows.
1. Protein.
Protein is superior to carbs and fat intake in both short-term and long-term hunger suppression. This seems to be related to not only a stronger effect on appetite-regulating hormones (i.e. ghrelin, PYY and GLP-1), but also to its high TEF.
2. Carbs and fat.
Up until a few years ago, carbs were generally regarded as superior to fat in terms of satiety on a calorie-per-calorie basis. The problem with the studies this belief was based on was the short duration used for measuring appetite-regulating hormones and subjective measures of satiety and fullness. In recent years, better methodological approaches show a more nuanced picture. In summary, it can be said that carbs suppress appetite better in the short-term, while fat wins out in the long-term.
The carbohydrate hierarchy in terms of best appetite-suppression from source: Glucose --> sucrose --> fructose.
With regards to satiety from different fatty acids, there's no significant difference between saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat. (Another study showed similar results.)
The carbohydrate hierarchy in terms of best appetite-suppression from source: Glucose --> sucrose --> fructose.
With regards to satiety from different fatty acids, there's no significant difference between saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat. (Another study showed similar results.)
3. Alcohol.
From "The Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth":
"Is higher TEF a reasonable explanation for lower body fat percentage in regular drinkers? We need to consider that alcohol does not affect satiety like other nutrients. The disinhibition of impulse control that follows intoxication may also encourage overeating. Ever come home from a party in the middle of the night and downed a box of cereals? That's what I mean."
Adding to that, note what I wrote about leptin earlier:
"Ethanol has not been directly compared to the other macronutrients. However, the effect is a negative one. While one study actually found a positive effect on leptin, most studies point towards an inhibitory effect.
Alcohol clearly provides nothing in regards to satiety and may even encourage overeating by affecting impulse control and/or leptin. For occasions where large quantities of alcohol is consumed, you may find the strategy outlined in my article about alcohol useful ("How to lose fat or prevent fat gain when drinking.")
"Is higher TEF a reasonable explanation for lower body fat percentage in regular drinkers? We need to consider that alcohol does not affect satiety like other nutrients. The disinhibition of impulse control that follows intoxication may also encourage overeating. Ever come home from a party in the middle of the night and downed a box of cereals? That's what I mean."
Adding to that, note what I wrote about leptin earlier:
"Ethanol has not been directly compared to the other macronutrients. However, the effect is a negative one. While one study actually found a positive effect on leptin, most studies point towards an inhibitory effect.
Alcohol clearly provides nothing in regards to satiety and may even encourage overeating by affecting impulse control and/or leptin. For occasions where large quantities of alcohol is consumed, you may find the strategy outlined in my article about alcohol useful ("How to lose fat or prevent fat gain when drinking.")
Key point
Food composition, individual differences and hedonic aspects aside, protein is superior to carbs and fat in terms of satiety and appetite-suppression.
I've now covered what you need to know about macronutrients in order to make an informed decision about food choices on cheat days or holiday eating sprees. Let's look at how this information can be put to use in practice.
Cheat Day Strategies
I've now covered what you need to know about macronutrients in order to make an informed decision about food choices on cheat days or holiday eating sprees. Let's look at how this information can be put to use in practice.
Cheat Day Strategies
Here are some strategies you might find useful. They are how I approach cheat days and holiday feasts, and what I encourage my clients to do. First, however let me address what you should not be doing.
1. Don't stress it.
Some people "pre-compensate" holidays by training themselves into the ground and/or reduce calories significantly in the days leading up to the feast. I highly recommend you do not do this, since I can almost guarantee that you will end up eating a lot more than you would normally if you approach holidays or feasts in a "deprived" mindset.
I touched on this issue in "Intermittent Fasting, Set-Point and Leptin." On the folly of "planning" a big meal or refeed at the end of the diet instead of taking it nice and easy, I said:
"...I would sit and plan my big refeed meal at the end of the diet. I would count every day like an inmate counting the days to his release from prison. And once I reached my goal, I would go bonkers, eat a bunch of crap, take several steps back and then go back to dieting in a feeble attempt to make up for my screwed up 'refeed' (aka binge in my case)."
Take it nice and slow - don't do anything stupid in the days before. No need to train your butt off and deplete glycogen, no need to up your cardio to two hours a day. You'll just end up eating more junk if you do. This is due to a combination of psychology and physiology (i.e. plummeting leptin.)
The topic of calorie-compensation is a well-known phenomenon; it's part of why exercise doesn't produce the predicted weight loss in some people. This is based on studies on Average Joes and Janes, and do not apply in most circumstances to the people reading this article. However, with specific reference to holiday eating and cheat days, I definitely notice a tendency in myself to eat more than I normally would if I train or reduce calories in the day leading up to the occasion.
Surely some people get away with it and don't compensate but in my experience those who think they are exempt from the rule are the ones to which the rule applies.
I touched on this issue in "Intermittent Fasting, Set-Point and Leptin." On the folly of "planning" a big meal or refeed at the end of the diet instead of taking it nice and easy, I said:
"...I would sit and plan my big refeed meal at the end of the diet. I would count every day like an inmate counting the days to his release from prison. And once I reached my goal, I would go bonkers, eat a bunch of crap, take several steps back and then go back to dieting in a feeble attempt to make up for my screwed up 'refeed' (aka binge in my case)."
Take it nice and slow - don't do anything stupid in the days before. No need to train your butt off and deplete glycogen, no need to up your cardio to two hours a day. You'll just end up eating more junk if you do. This is due to a combination of psychology and physiology (i.e. plummeting leptin.)
The topic of calorie-compensation is a well-known phenomenon; it's part of why exercise doesn't produce the predicted weight loss in some people. This is based on studies on Average Joes and Janes, and do not apply in most circumstances to the people reading this article. However, with specific reference to holiday eating and cheat days, I definitely notice a tendency in myself to eat more than I normally would if I train or reduce calories in the day leading up to the occasion.
Surely some people get away with it and don't compensate but in my experience those who think they are exempt from the rule are the ones to which the rule applies.
2. Create a calorie buffer.
On the day of the feast, you'll want to make sure you have a buffer saved up for the occasion. You'll either want to reduce your meal frequency as much as you can or reduce your calorie intake in the meals leading up to the feast.
If possible, fast up until the big meal. This is easy and a bit of a no-brainer for those used to intermittent fasting. If you are used to 16-hour fasts per my usual recommendations, it should not be an issue to prolong it further, i.e. doing a 20-24 hour fast ("Eat Stop Eat"-style).
Make sure you eat a high-protein meal on the day before, as usual - preferably with fiber to slow down absorption. That's also a good practice for regular Leangains-fasts but it's even more so important for >16-hour fasts to avoid hunger pangs in my experience. Should hunger become unbearable, which I've never experienced even during prolonged fasting, drink some coffee and/or eat a plate of fibrous vegetables.
The second best strategy if you're not used to intermittent fasting is to use a "high-protein low-everything-else"-diet leading up to the feast. This will maximize satiety for the lowest amount of calories. Here's an example assuming you have your big feast planned for dinner or around evening, 5-8 PM or so:
10-12 PM: 40-50 g protein, trace carbs and fat (~200-250 kcal)
2-3 PM: Same as above.
5-8 PM: The grand feast. Be it Thanksgiving Dinner, cheesecake mastery or whatever else you have planned that involves eating yourself silly.
For a regular guy, the above plan allows about 2000 calories of goodness during the big meal until any significant fat gain occurs. Still, if you're like me you can eat a whole lot more than that in one sitting. Next we'll have a look at what you can do for damage control during the meal itself.
By the way, here's a pro tip: If you don't know how to make a "high-protein, low-everything-else"-diet bearable, you need to try protein fluff. I've yet to encounter a more satiating and tasty high-protein treat.
If possible, fast up until the big meal. This is easy and a bit of a no-brainer for those used to intermittent fasting. If you are used to 16-hour fasts per my usual recommendations, it should not be an issue to prolong it further, i.e. doing a 20-24 hour fast ("Eat Stop Eat"-style).
Make sure you eat a high-protein meal on the day before, as usual - preferably with fiber to slow down absorption. That's also a good practice for regular Leangains-fasts but it's even more so important for >16-hour fasts to avoid hunger pangs in my experience. Should hunger become unbearable, which I've never experienced even during prolonged fasting, drink some coffee and/or eat a plate of fibrous vegetables.
The second best strategy if you're not used to intermittent fasting is to use a "high-protein low-everything-else"-diet leading up to the feast. This will maximize satiety for the lowest amount of calories. Here's an example assuming you have your big feast planned for dinner or around evening, 5-8 PM or so:
10-12 PM: 40-50 g protein, trace carbs and fat (~200-250 kcal)
2-3 PM: Same as above.
5-8 PM: The grand feast. Be it Thanksgiving Dinner, cheesecake mastery or whatever else you have planned that involves eating yourself silly.
For a regular guy, the above plan allows about 2000 calories of goodness during the big meal until any significant fat gain occurs. Still, if you're like me you can eat a whole lot more than that in one sitting. Next we'll have a look at what you can do for damage control during the meal itself.
By the way, here's a pro tip: If you don't know how to make a "high-protein, low-everything-else"-diet bearable, you need to try protein fluff. I've yet to encounter a more satiating and tasty high-protein treat.
Protein fluff; I mistakenly wrote that you'd need casein or milk-protein isolate for this, but people report getting respectable fluffs with some whey protein brands as well. Give it a go - you'll love it.
3. Protein priority.
In the short-term, splurging on high-carb, high-protein and low-fat foods would lead to insignificant fat gain, as glycogen stores would soak up most of the carbs (which would severely limit DNL.) However, such an approach is not very appealing, or realistic, if you want to experience the splendor of Thanksgiving and Christmas. I don't know about you, but I never think of the gifts on Christmas - I think of all the food I get to eat :D
Here's how I suggest you approach the eating spree that is about to ensue:
* Vary fat and carb intake to personal preference but make protein a high priority. "Protein first - carbs and fat for taste". If you think of your meals like this, it'll automatically raise the percentage of protein during the meal, increasing TEF and satiety.
* In regards to the order which you eat your foods, I suggest mainly focusing on protein, fat and volume (i.e. veggies) first and then add carbs in later. In my personal experience, this tends to maximize both short-term and long-term satiety and reduce calorie intake later on. Fat has a latent effect on appetite-suppression, so eating more fat earlier on makes sense.
* Do not neglect food volume - if possible, try to fill up on veggies in your early meals and save the more calorie-dense stuff for later on.
* Sucrose, fructose and liquid calories, i.e. treats, cakes and alcohol, should preferably be added in last, when you're full from the main meal(s).
Here's how I suggest you approach the eating spree that is about to ensue:
* Vary fat and carb intake to personal preference but make protein a high priority. "Protein first - carbs and fat for taste". If you think of your meals like this, it'll automatically raise the percentage of protein during the meal, increasing TEF and satiety.
* In regards to the order which you eat your foods, I suggest mainly focusing on protein, fat and volume (i.e. veggies) first and then add carbs in later. In my personal experience, this tends to maximize both short-term and long-term satiety and reduce calorie intake later on. Fat has a latent effect on appetite-suppression, so eating more fat earlier on makes sense.
* Do not neglect food volume - if possible, try to fill up on veggies in your early meals and save the more calorie-dense stuff for later on.
* Sucrose, fructose and liquid calories, i.e. treats, cakes and alcohol, should preferably be added in last, when you're full from the main meal(s).
4. Limit choices, not amounts.
Studies show that when people are presented with multiple food-choices, they eat more. In fact, calorie intake during a buffet scales almost linearly with the amount of different foods to choose from. If I offered you unlimited amounts of turkey and cheesecake, you'd likely only eat so much of it before you felt "full" and satisfied.
However, if I threw a third food into the mix, like potatoes or chocolate pudding, you'd end up eating a lot more - even if you weren't a fan of potatoes or chocolate pudding in normal circumstances. Humans are wired a bit funny and some behaviors are maladaptive in our environment of excesses. Having a taste of everything was a good strategy during our evolution, since it protected again micronutrient-deficiencies.
By "mentally limiting" the food choices you allow yourself, i.e. only eating that which you absolutely love and crave, can be a very effective strategy in regulating calorie intake without feeling deprived. Remember, you don't need to taste of every damn food or treat that is offered. Stick to that which you truly enjoy eating and skip the rest.
However, if I threw a third food into the mix, like potatoes or chocolate pudding, you'd end up eating a lot more - even if you weren't a fan of potatoes or chocolate pudding in normal circumstances. Humans are wired a bit funny and some behaviors are maladaptive in our environment of excesses. Having a taste of everything was a good strategy during our evolution, since it protected again micronutrient-deficiencies.
By "mentally limiting" the food choices you allow yourself, i.e. only eating that which you absolutely love and crave, can be a very effective strategy in regulating calorie intake without feeling deprived. Remember, you don't need to taste of every damn food or treat that is offered. Stick to that which you truly enjoy eating and skip the rest.
Monday, November 15, 2010
An Announcement and a Few Good Reads
5:28 PM | Posted by
Unknown |
Edit Post
Edit Post
After winning "Who is your favorite health/fitness blogger?"(thanks to everyone who voted) at Health Habits I was approached and asked whether I wanted to join the Hive Health Media network. After reading the terms, and looking at some of the other blogs in the network, I thought I wouldn't have anything to lose by at least giving it a trial run for a few months.
This will serve to give my site and my articles some extra exposure. In return, I'll keep an eye out for share-worthy material on the other blogs in the network and promote it (via Twitter, FB, etc.) if I find something good. That's it. Nothing else changes.
A Few Good Reads
I've come across quite a few good reads this last week that I thought I'd share.
1. "Why Making Dinner is a Good Idea." Jonah Lehrer writes one of my favorite blogs. This article is about evolution, dopamine and the curse of fast foods. I highly recommend you check it out. I've mentioned Jonah Lehrer before, in "The Marshmallow Test".
2. "Carbohydrate Intake and Depression." I've noticed some people have a harder time low-carbing during the dark winter months; I too experienced this way back in the days when I played around with ketogenic diets and CKD (cyclical ketogenic diet). Lyle proposes a few strategies that might make it easier. Note: The woman asking the question is an extreme example. 180-200 g carbs is certainly not low, but don't get too hung up on that; my point is that low-carbing is harder, relatively speaking, for some people during the dark months.
3. "How Not to Fight Colds." I haven't been sick in ten years but I do get a runny nose from time to time. According to this article, this is a good thing and you shouldn't aim to fight cold symptoms. They're just signs of an active immune system.
4. "Leangains: Martin Berkhan’s Workout Approach." I talk training over at Richard Nikoley's site.
5. "Why Working From Home is Both Awesome and Horrible." Hilarious. Even funnier, or spookier, when I see that the clock in "Loss of Regimen" is 03.17 AM...on the minute the same as here as I'm typing this.
That's it for tonight. Keep up with me on Twitter if you want to get more tips on read-worthy material.
P.S. New article coming soon. Sorry, folks. I originally wrote that it would be up on Tuesday but, as I started writing, it took off into another direction. On the plus side, it'll be more interesting and rewarding when it's done.
P.S.S. I added a review of "Adipoxil" to "Supplements You Might Actually Find Useful".
This will serve to give my site and my articles some extra exposure. In return, I'll keep an eye out for share-worthy material on the other blogs in the network and promote it (via Twitter, FB, etc.) if I find something good. That's it. Nothing else changes.
A Few Good Reads
I've come across quite a few good reads this last week that I thought I'd share.
1. "Why Making Dinner is a Good Idea." Jonah Lehrer writes one of my favorite blogs. This article is about evolution, dopamine and the curse of fast foods. I highly recommend you check it out. I've mentioned Jonah Lehrer before, in "The Marshmallow Test".
2. "Carbohydrate Intake and Depression." I've noticed some people have a harder time low-carbing during the dark winter months; I too experienced this way back in the days when I played around with ketogenic diets and CKD (cyclical ketogenic diet). Lyle proposes a few strategies that might make it easier. Note: The woman asking the question is an extreme example. 180-200 g carbs is certainly not low, but don't get too hung up on that; my point is that low-carbing is harder, relatively speaking, for some people during the dark months.
3. "How Not to Fight Colds." I haven't been sick in ten years but I do get a runny nose from time to time. According to this article, this is a good thing and you shouldn't aim to fight cold symptoms. They're just signs of an active immune system.
4. "Leangains: Martin Berkhan’s Workout Approach." I talk training over at Richard Nikoley's site.
5. "Why Working From Home is Both Awesome and Horrible." Hilarious. Even funnier, or spookier, when I see that the clock in "Loss of Regimen" is 03.17 AM...on the minute the same as here as I'm typing this.
That's it for tonight. Keep up with me on Twitter if you want to get more tips on read-worthy material.
P.S. New article coming soon. Sorry, folks. I originally wrote that it would be up on Tuesday but, as I started writing, it took off into another direction. On the plus side, it'll be more interesting and rewarding when it's done.
P.S.S. I added a review of "Adipoxil" to "Supplements You Might Actually Find Useful".
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked (Major Update Nov 4th)
4:39 PM | Posted by
Unknown |
Edit Post
Edit Post
Or "Top Ten Diet Myths Debunked". That would have fit almost as well. Ok, so in retrospect, I think I screwed up on the title. Many myths just happened to be connected to intermittent fasting (meal frequency, breakfast skipping, etc.). Well, live and learn.
November 4th Addendum: Section added at the end of the article.
Everyone who learns about nutrition through the usual channels, be it fitness magazines, mainstream diet books and forums, gets cursed with the prevailing belief system of what constitutes a good diet.
Though specific dietary recommendations vary slightly depending on who you listen to, there are many common denominators and "rules" that you are told you must adhere to. Call it broscience, incompetence or ignorance, same thing. We've all been there and we've all followed these rules. Led like sheep, not knowing better. Trusting that those we listen to knew what they were talking about. While these dietary myths run rampant in the bodybuilding and fitness community, you'll find that many are being endlessly propagated in the mainstream as well.
Upon closer scrutiny, the great majority lack scientific basis. They are born out out of half-truths, faulty conclusions drawn from poorly conducted studies or created when a study gets cited out of context.
Sometimes, what's claimed is even in exact opposition to what really occurs at a physiological level. Many people believe that alcohol is fattening, more so than any other macronutrient. Yet, if you look at how inefficiently the body converts ethanol to fat, you'll find that it's completely backwards. I talked about this in "The Truth about Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth". Also note how the proposed negative effect of alcohol on muscle growth doesn't even exist in the scientific literature.
You'll see similar examples in this article. For example, in short-term fasting, it's often claimed that metabolic rate slows down - yet looking at the studies, the opposite is true.
The myths I'll debunk today are being kept alive by:
1. Repetition. Repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth. If everyone is saying the same thing, it must be true. No need to look into it and think for yourself. The fact that bodybuilders and fitness celebrities keep propagating these myths doesn't help either. Most people reason that if these people do it, it must be great. Unfortunately, bodybuilders and fitness celebrities might just be one of the last people on earth you should listen to if you want objective and accurate opinions in nutrition.
2. Commercial forces. For example, the supplement industry benefits greatly from people believing that frequent feedings provide a metabolic advantage. People don't have time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal and grain industry benefits by preaching about the virtues of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There's no commercial incentive in telling people that they would do just fine with three squares a day.
3. Few people have the knowledge or interest needed to interpret the scientific evidence and draw their own conclusions. In order to do this you would need an academic background that included critical examination of studies and study methodology as part of the learning process.
9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.
Truth
November 4th Addendum
First of all, I appreciate the support and help with spreading this article around. I’ve received dozens of emails from people who’ve told me that this was a great eye opener for them; a seed for a new way of critical thinking – in place of blind acceptance of these dubious claims that are often made. So for those who have assisted me in the fight against broscience and diet myths, thanks. Good karma will come your way.
As I read through the article I didn’t find anything that needed to be clarified further or worth changing. Well, nothing that would change the conclusions at least. Since I like this stuff I could easily devote a full article to each one of the different myths and delve deeper into the nuances and methodological problems that plague some of the widely cited data from which they are born. But this article is already long enough as it is.
However, I do have a few addendums I’d like to make. I’ve added them here, so those who didn’t read the article when it first appeared have to sift through it again.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
One of the most ridiculous arguments against a low (or should I say normal?) meal frequency is the one of sumo wrestlers eating habits. Since sumo wrestlers eat two times a day it must be the best way to get fat and exactly what you shouldn’t be doing for fat loss, or so the logic goes. I wouldn’t have blamed anyone for bringing this argument into the discussion 34 years ago – because it was actually what some researchers believed at that time.
The methods and logic used to arrive at such a conclusion was completely retarded. For example, as a “control group” they used healthy Japanese males weighing 105-130 lbs eating three meals a day. Brilliant. It’s fair to say that nutritional science and research wasn't exactly stellar at that time (Ancel Keys anyone?) but this “study” was terrible even by medieval standards. Yes, it must be meal frequency that’s to blame. Never mind the 5000+ calories consumed on a daily basis.
The traditional dish consumed by sumo wrestlers, Chankonabe, is actually not bad at all in terms of calorie density and food composition. Seems it’s even popular among thin Japanese women. However, since Chankonabe is so deeply entrenched into sumo culture, wrestlers will only count a dish served with Chankonabe as a meal. Snacks eaten in between the two daily Chankonabe meals, which are events that are treated like rituals of great importance, simply aren’t considered as meals or reported as such. This quote is pretty telling: “…I eat hamburgers and foods I purchase at convenience stores as snacks.” (From "Sumo meal now what the petite eat.")
I found the tidbit about Chankonabe tradition interesting, but it's also one very big confounder that was not considered in that old worthless study. The reported mean intake of the wrestlers, 5100-5600 kcal is quite a lot for a 230 lb male (average weight in the study,) but considering the daily training sumo wrestlers go through, it’s certainly not a mind boggling amount. It’s safe to say that calorie intake was probably significantly higher given the exclusion of snacks. There was no tracking of the sumo wrestlers diet by the researchers. It's amazing that this study passed its peer review.
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
I forgot to mention one critical study that often comes up in the context of a high meal frequency being beneficial when dieting. In “Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.” it was found that boxers eating two meals a day on a 1200-calorie diet lost more muscle than the six-meal-group. There are many errors with this conclusion. Lyle McDonald summarized them nicely:
“In this study, boxers were given either 2 or 6 meals per day with identical protein and calories and examined for lean body mass lost; the 2 meal per day group lost more lean body mass (note: both groups lost lean body mass, the 2 meal per day group simply lost more). Aha, higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. Well, not exactly.
In that study, boxers were put on low calories and then an inadequate amount of liquid protein was given to both groups and the meals were divided up into 2 or 6 meals. But the study design was pretty crappy and I want to look at a few reasons why I think that.
First and foremost, a 2 vs. 6 meal per day comparison isn’t realistic. As discussed in The Protein Book, a typical whole food meal will only maintain an anabolic state for 5-6 hours, with only 2 meals per day, that’s simply too long between meals and three vs. six meals would have been far more realistic (I would note that the IF’ing folks are doing just fine not eating for 16 hours per day).
Additionally is the use of a liquid protein that confounds things even more. Liquids digest that much more quickly than solid foods so the study was basically set up to fail for the low meal frequency group. They were given an inadequate amount of rapidly digesting liquid protein too infrequently to spare muscle loss. But what if they had been given sufficient amounts of solid protein (e.g. 1.5 g/lb lean body mass) at those same intervals? The results would have been completely different.
As discussed in The Protein Book in some detail, meal frequency only really matters when protein intake is inadequate in the first place. Under those conditions, a higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. But when protein intake is adequate in the first place (and again that usually means 1.5 g/lb lean body mass for lean dieters), meal frequency makes no difference. And that’s why the boxer study is meaningless so far as I’m concerned. An inadequate amount of liquid protein given twice per day is nothing like how folks should be dieting in the first place.”
From: “Meal Frequency and Mass Gains.”
So in summary, a low calorie intake coupled with an inadequate amount of liquid protein. Liquid protein is rapidly absorbed. This would leave the low meal frequency-group without dietary protein available in between meals, causing DNG, de novo gluconeogenesis, of endogenous protein stores (muscle). The large energy deficit and leanness of the boxers are also factors to consider.
None of this is apparent if you look at the abstract of the study; no protein intake or protein type is mentioned. Details that are critical to know in this context.
I should also point out that I was wrong about the origins of this myth which several people have pointed out. This is what Lyle McDonald wrote in comments:
“The 30 g/meal thing has been around for decades, much older than the 1997 paper. A few gut hunches on where it came from.
1. Marketing: I base this on the fact that the value has changed over the years. When Met-RX sold products with 30 grams protein, 30 g/meal was the cutoff. When they moved to 42 g/meal, 42 grams was the cutoff. Weider probably did it before then.
2. Bodybuilders looking to rationalize their desire to eat lots of mini-meals after the fact. So take an average male bodybuilder, 180 lbs eating 1 g/lb who has decided that 6 meals/day is optimal and....
3. Even there, I think Gironda had written this. It probably came out of some bullshit paper in the 50's that was taken out of context and just got repeated long enough to become dogmatic truth.”
So that’s that.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
A new study on breakfast and health came out a few weeks ago. It brings nothing new to the table; the conclusions drawn are similar to that of older studies that found correlations between body weight and breakfast skipping.
However, since it’s such a beautiful example of everything that is wrong with epidemiology, I will devote a separate post to it, instead of dissecting it in this article, which is long enough as it is. I will have a detailed analysis up soon. Not because I believe that I need to make my point any clearer, but because it will be a lesson in critical thinking.
My biggest frustration
Unfortunately, while this article might have opened a few people’s eyes, I fear that it might be for naught when it comes to the great majority. At least for the mainstream crowd who prefers anecdotes and muscle magazines over science-based articles such as this one. Just have a look at the comments in this thread on comedian Joe Rogan’s forum:
“He 'debunked' those ideas by his own logic and his interpretation of various studies. It wasn't very convincing.”
The only reason it wasn’t convincing enough for this clown was that he could not understand the abstracts my links pointed to. That’s assuming he even took the time to read the article (likelihood: 0.01%).
However, I’m not surprised. The Average Joe (or should I say "Average Bro"?) seems to think everything is up for “interpretation,” which is a load of bullshit. There are objective truths to be found if you look for them. But finding them takes time, requires some effort. Most people shy away from it. Getting spoon-fed is more comfortable. That's OK, because not everyone wants to read some basic nutrition and physiology textbooks. But at least be humble enough to understand that your opinion is not one that you have formed on your own.
As i see it, the problem is twofold in the sense that outliers, the majority of which have severe methodological flaws, often get all of the attention (i.e. the boxers study). The other problem is that many accepted “truths” are based on the conclusions drawn from correlational studies (i.e. meal frequency and breakfast skipping). This is what trickles down and is presented to the mainstream and they swallow it; hook, line, and sinker.
And even then, when the mass media for once debunks a myth, some people just cover their ears and go "lalalala," saying things like:
“I just read it. I'm still not buying it though.”
From the Joe Rogan forum thread, in response to the New York Times article that debunked the meal frequency myth. What a sheep.
There are plenty of more comments along those lines. Makes for some half-decent entertainment. For someone stranded on an abandoned island that is. Note that no one presented evidence that contradicted this article and the conclusions I have presented. Critique is fine but not when it cannot be backed by anything else than gym lore. Fortunately, some people are smarter than that.
This is my biggest frustration with this industry. Those that scream loud enough win - the supplement companies, mass media "health experts" and diet gurus with Magic Pills and Secret Methods to sell.
Someone who is unfamiliar with my background may easily mistake me and my writings for the latter and believe I have presented evidence that would somehow favor my methods, which I have not. This is unfortunate but understandable since almost everyone else in this industry tends to do it. It leads to much confusion as laypersons think everyone is trying to sell them something. For them, finding objective facts is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
But remember: never once have I said, or claimed, that I believe everyone needs to convert to intermittent fasting - or even that it is proven to be superior to a regular healthy diet. The research surrounding intermittent fasting is very interesting but it's too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
I am still of the opinion that the best diet is the one you can stick to in the long term. However, the decision should be based on personal preference and not neurotic adherence to a diet built on faulty and bad science.
November 4th Addendum: Section added at the end of the article.
Everyone who learns about nutrition through the usual channels, be it fitness magazines, mainstream diet books and forums, gets cursed with the prevailing belief system of what constitutes a good diet.
Though specific dietary recommendations vary slightly depending on who you listen to, there are many common denominators and "rules" that you are told you must adhere to. Call it broscience, incompetence or ignorance, same thing. We've all been there and we've all followed these rules. Led like sheep, not knowing better. Trusting that those we listen to knew what they were talking about. While these dietary myths run rampant in the bodybuilding and fitness community, you'll find that many are being endlessly propagated in the mainstream as well.
Upon closer scrutiny, the great majority lack scientific basis. They are born out out of half-truths, faulty conclusions drawn from poorly conducted studies or created when a study gets cited out of context.
Sometimes, what's claimed is even in exact opposition to what really occurs at a physiological level. Many people believe that alcohol is fattening, more so than any other macronutrient. Yet, if you look at how inefficiently the body converts ethanol to fat, you'll find that it's completely backwards. I talked about this in "The Truth about Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle Growth". Also note how the proposed negative effect of alcohol on muscle growth doesn't even exist in the scientific literature.
You'll see similar examples in this article. For example, in short-term fasting, it's often claimed that metabolic rate slows down - yet looking at the studies, the opposite is true.
The myths I'll debunk today are being kept alive by:
1. Repetition. Repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth. If everyone is saying the same thing, it must be true. No need to look into it and think for yourself. The fact that bodybuilders and fitness celebrities keep propagating these myths doesn't help either. Most people reason that if these people do it, it must be great. Unfortunately, bodybuilders and fitness celebrities might just be one of the last people on earth you should listen to if you want objective and accurate opinions in nutrition.
2. Commercial forces. For example, the supplement industry benefits greatly from people believing that frequent feedings provide a metabolic advantage. People don't have time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal and grain industry benefits by preaching about the virtues of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There's no commercial incentive in telling people that they would do just fine with three squares a day.
3. Few people have the knowledge or interest needed to interpret the scientific evidence and draw their own conclusions. In order to do this you would need an academic background that included critical examination of studies and study methodology as part of the learning process.
However, an academic background, or an extensive education in nutrition or physiology, seems to correlate very poorly with truthfulness and objectivity in the field of dietetics in my experience. The advice and claims I have seen made by many RDs (Registered Dietitians) has been so shamelessly wrong that I put little stock in anything they have to say. The same goes for many "diet gurus" and so-called health experts with a solid list of academic credentials.
That people who should know better keep repeating the same myths is somewhat puzzling and strange. Perhaps they lose interest in keeping up with research. What we know today is a bit different from what we knew twenty years ago after all. Or maybe they're afraid that their credibility would be questioned if they change the advice they have been giving for years. I'm not sure. I've been thinking about it quite a bit. But I digress. Back to the topic.
The top ten fasting myths debunked
The dietary recommendations and advice given in mainstream media and most fora will have you believe that fasting is a hazardous practice. On top of wrecking your metabolism, you should expect ravenous hunger, fat gain, muscle loss, and severe mental impairment. Or so you are told.
Needless to say, people who are introduced to Leangains and the intermittent fasting diet concept have many fears that will make them think twice before embracing it. Fears grounded in years of a dietary indoctrination based on faulty ideas and lies. We've all been there.
I've listed the ten most common fasting and diet myths that exist to make people resistant to intermittent fasting. I've explained why they're wrong and linked out to references and other resources for those who would like to read a more detailed review of the issues. I've also listed their origins, or what I believe to be their origins.
I've dealt with each myth many times before on this site but it would be good to have everything in one place. Even if you've been following me for a while, you'll find some new information here I haven't discussed in the past. It's a long read but it'll be worth your while.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
Truth
Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.
B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
Origin
Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.
Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).
There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:
* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.
* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.
The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
That people who should know better keep repeating the same myths is somewhat puzzling and strange. Perhaps they lose interest in keeping up with research. What we know today is a bit different from what we knew twenty years ago after all. Or maybe they're afraid that their credibility would be questioned if they change the advice they have been giving for years. I'm not sure. I've been thinking about it quite a bit. But I digress. Back to the topic.
The top ten fasting myths debunked
The dietary recommendations and advice given in mainstream media and most fora will have you believe that fasting is a hazardous practice. On top of wrecking your metabolism, you should expect ravenous hunger, fat gain, muscle loss, and severe mental impairment. Or so you are told.
Needless to say, people who are introduced to Leangains and the intermittent fasting diet concept have many fears that will make them think twice before embracing it. Fears grounded in years of a dietary indoctrination based on faulty ideas and lies. We've all been there.
I've listed the ten most common fasting and diet myths that exist to make people resistant to intermittent fasting. I've explained why they're wrong and linked out to references and other resources for those who would like to read a more detailed review of the issues. I've also listed their origins, or what I believe to be their origins.
I've dealt with each myth many times before on this site but it would be good to have everything in one place. Even if you've been following me for a while, you'll find some new information here I haven't discussed in the past. It's a long read but it'll be worth your while.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
Truth
Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.
B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
Origin
Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.
Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).
There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:
* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.
* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.
The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
Truth
Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).
A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.
B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.
The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?
The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.
There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.
Origin
A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.
B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.
The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?
The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.
There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.
Origin
This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.
3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
Truth
3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
Truth
According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.
People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...
Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.
For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.
What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.
Origin
People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...
Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.
For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.
What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.
Origin
Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
Truth
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
Truth
Whenever you hear something really crazy you need to ask yourself if it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. It's a great way to quickly determine if something may be valid or if it's more likely a steaming pile of horseshit. This myth is a great example of the latter. Do you think we would be here today if our bodies could only make use of 30 grams of protein per meal?
The simple truth is that more protein just takes a longer time to digest and be utilized. For some concrete numbers, digestion of a standard meal is still incomplete after five hours. Amino acids are still being released into your bloodstream and absorbed into muscles. You are still "anabolic." This is a fairly standard "Average Joe"-meal: 600 kcal, 75 g carbs, 37 g protein and 17 g fat. Best of all? This was after eating pizza, a refined food that should be quickly absorbed relatively speaking.
Think about this for a second. How long do you think a big steak, with double the protein intake of the above example, and a big pile of veggies would last you? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays an important role in absorption speed, especially when it comes to amino acids. Type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and prior meals eaten all affect how long you'll have amino acids released and being taken up by tissues after meals.
Origin
The simple truth is that more protein just takes a longer time to digest and be utilized. For some concrete numbers, digestion of a standard meal is still incomplete after five hours. Amino acids are still being released into your bloodstream and absorbed into muscles. You are still "anabolic." This is a fairly standard "Average Joe"-meal: 600 kcal, 75 g carbs, 37 g protein and 17 g fat. Best of all? This was after eating pizza, a refined food that should be quickly absorbed relatively speaking.
Think about this for a second. How long do you think a big steak, with double the protein intake of the above example, and a big pile of veggies would last you? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays an important role in absorption speed, especially when it comes to amino acids. Type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and prior meals eaten all affect how long you'll have amino acids released and being taken up by tissues after meals.
Origin
I think this "30 grams of protein"-nonsense started to circulate after a classic study from 1997 by Boirie and colleagues. "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion" was the first study to quantify the absorption rate of whey and casein protein and gave birth to the concept of fast and slow protein. After that, whey protein came to be known for it's ability to rapidly elevate amino acids in the blood stream and casein for it's ability to create a sustained release of amino acids. Whey was anabolic and casein anti-catabolic.
Given that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3-4 hours, I guess some people believed that meant 30 grams of protein can only be used in one sitting. Or that you had to eat every 3-4 hours to stay "anabolic." Unfortunately, people missed a few facts that made these findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in the fasted state. On it's own, and with no meals eaten beforehand, 30 grams of whey protein is absorbed within a mere 3-4 hours. With meals eaten earlier in the day, or if you'd consume a whey shake after a meal, absorption would be much slower.
Second of all, whey protein is the fastest protein of all and digests at 10 g/hour. Casein is much slower; in Boirie's study, the casein protein was still being absorbed when they stopped the experiment 7 hours later. Most whole food proteins are absorbed at a rate of 3-6 grams an hour. Add other macronutrients to that and they'll take longer.
One of my clients, showing symptoms of profound catabolism by impaired protein absorption and daily 16 hour periods of fasting.
Further reading:
"Is There a Limit to how Much Protein the Body can Use in a Single Meal?" by Alan Aragon.
What Are Good Sources of Protein? – Speed of Digestion Part 1
What Are Good Sources of Protein? – Speed of Digestion Part 2
6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.
Truth
Given that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3-4 hours, I guess some people believed that meant 30 grams of protein can only be used in one sitting. Or that you had to eat every 3-4 hours to stay "anabolic." Unfortunately, people missed a few facts that made these findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in the fasted state. On it's own, and with no meals eaten beforehand, 30 grams of whey protein is absorbed within a mere 3-4 hours. With meals eaten earlier in the day, or if you'd consume a whey shake after a meal, absorption would be much slower.
Second of all, whey protein is the fastest protein of all and digests at 10 g/hour. Casein is much slower; in Boirie's study, the casein protein was still being absorbed when they stopped the experiment 7 hours later. Most whole food proteins are absorbed at a rate of 3-6 grams an hour. Add other macronutrients to that and they'll take longer.
One of my clients, showing symptoms of profound catabolism by impaired protein absorption and daily 16 hour periods of fasting.
Further reading:
"Is There a Limit to how Much Protein the Body can Use in a Single Meal?" by Alan Aragon.
What Are Good Sources of Protein? – Speed of Digestion Part 1
What Are Good Sources of Protein? – Speed of Digestion Part 2
6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.
Truth
This myth hinges on people's belief it's important to have a steady stream of amino acids available to not lose muscle. As I explained earlier, protein is absorbed at a very slow rate. After a large high-protein meal, amino acids trickle into your blood stream for several hours.
No studies have looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us. For example, by examining amino acid appearance in the blood and tissue utilization of amino acids after a large steak, veggies and followed up with some cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and a typical meal for those that follow the Leangains approach. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on what we know; that a modest amount of casein, consumed as a liquid on an empty stomach is still releasing amino acids after 7 hours. With this in mind it's no stretch to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal at the end of the day would still be releasing aminos for 16-24 hours.
Few studies has examined the effects of regular fasting on muscle retention and compared it to a control diet. None of them are relevant to how most people fast and some are marred by flaws in study design and methodology. Like this study which showed increased muscle gain and fat loss, with no weight training or change in calorie intake, just by changing meal frequency. While I would love to cite that study as proof for the benefits of intermittent fasting, body composition was measured by BIA, which is notoriously imprecise.
Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast.
No studies have looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us. For example, by examining amino acid appearance in the blood and tissue utilization of amino acids after a large steak, veggies and followed up with some cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and a typical meal for those that follow the Leangains approach. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on what we know; that a modest amount of casein, consumed as a liquid on an empty stomach is still releasing amino acids after 7 hours. With this in mind it's no stretch to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal at the end of the day would still be releasing aminos for 16-24 hours.
Few studies has examined the effects of regular fasting on muscle retention and compared it to a control diet. None of them are relevant to how most people fast and some are marred by flaws in study design and methodology. Like this study which showed increased muscle gain and fat loss, with no weight training or change in calorie intake, just by changing meal frequency. While I would love to cite that study as proof for the benefits of intermittent fasting, body composition was measured by BIA, which is notoriously imprecise.
Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast.
Origin
An example of severe exaggeration of physiological and scientific fact, not relevant to anyone who's not undergoing prolonged fasting or starvation.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
Truth
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
Truth
Breakfast skipping is associated with higher body weights in the population. The explanation is similar to that of lower meal frequencies and higher body weights. Breakfast skippers have dysregulated eating habits and show a higher disregard for health. People who skip breakfast are also more likely to be dieting, thus by default they are also likely to be heavier than non-dieters. Keep in mind that most people who resort to breakfast skipping are not the type that sit around and read about nutrition. They are like most people dieting in a haphazard manner. The type to go on a 800 calorie-crash diet and then rebound, gaining all the weight (and then some) back.
Sometimes, an argument is made for eating breakfast as we are more insulin sensitive in the morning. This is true; you are always more insulin sensitive after an overnight fast. Or rather, you are always the most insulin sensitive during the first meal of the day. Insulin sensitivity is increased after glycogen depletion. If you haven't eaten in 8-10 hours, liver glycogen is modestly depleted. This is what increases insulin sensitivity - not some magical time period during the morning hours. Same thing with weight training. Insulin sensitivity is increased as long as muscle glycogen stores aren't full. It doesn't disappear if you omit carbs after your workout.
Origin
Sometimes, an argument is made for eating breakfast as we are more insulin sensitive in the morning. This is true; you are always more insulin sensitive after an overnight fast. Or rather, you are always the most insulin sensitive during the first meal of the day. Insulin sensitivity is increased after glycogen depletion. If you haven't eaten in 8-10 hours, liver glycogen is modestly depleted. This is what increases insulin sensitivity - not some magical time period during the morning hours. Same thing with weight training. Insulin sensitivity is increased as long as muscle glycogen stores aren't full. It doesn't disappear if you omit carbs after your workout.
Origin
First of all, we have the large scale epidemiological studies showing an association with breakfast skipping and higher body weights in the population. One researcher from that study, commenting on the association with breakfast skipping or food choices for breakfast, said:
"These groups appear to represent people 'on the run,' eating only candy or soda, or grabbing a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. Their higher BMI would appear to
support the notion that 'dysregulated' eating patterns are associated with obesity, instead of or in addition to total energy intake per se."
Kellogg's and clueless RDs love to cite them over and over again, so people are lead to believe that breakfast has unique metabolic and health-related benefits. In reality, these studies just show breakfast eaters maintain better dietary habits overall.
Other studies frequently cited claiming that breakfast is beneficial for insulin sensitivity are all marred with methodological flaws and largely uncontrolled in design.
In one widely cited study, subjects were entrusted to eat most meals in free-living conditions. The breakfast skipping group ate more and gained weight, which affected health parameters negatively.
From the abstract: "Reported energy intake was significantly lower in the EB period (P=0.001), and resting energy expenditure did not differ significantly between the 2 periods." EB = eating breakfast. In essence, people who ate breakfast could control their energy intake better for the rest of the day. They didn't gain any weight but the breakfast skipping group did. Fat gain always affects insulin sensitivity and other health parameters negatively. Thus what people took this to mean is that breakfast is healthy and improves insulin sensitivity. Which isn't at all what the study showed.
8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.
Truth
"These groups appear to represent people 'on the run,' eating only candy or soda, or grabbing a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. Their higher BMI would appear to
support the notion that 'dysregulated' eating patterns are associated with obesity, instead of or in addition to total energy intake per se."
Kellogg's and clueless RDs love to cite them over and over again, so people are lead to believe that breakfast has unique metabolic and health-related benefits. In reality, these studies just show breakfast eaters maintain better dietary habits overall.
Other studies frequently cited claiming that breakfast is beneficial for insulin sensitivity are all marred with methodological flaws and largely uncontrolled in design.
In one widely cited study, subjects were entrusted to eat most meals in free-living conditions. The breakfast skipping group ate more and gained weight, which affected health parameters negatively.
From the abstract: "Reported energy intake was significantly lower in the EB period (P=0.001), and resting energy expenditure did not differ significantly between the 2 periods." EB = eating breakfast. In essence, people who ate breakfast could control their energy intake better for the rest of the day. They didn't gain any weight but the breakfast skipping group did. Fat gain always affects insulin sensitivity and other health parameters negatively. Thus what people took this to mean is that breakfast is healthy and improves insulin sensitivity. Which isn't at all what the study showed.
8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.
Truth
Cortisol is a steroid hormone that maintains blood pressure, regulates the immune system and helps break down proteins, glucose and lipids. It's a hormone that's gotten quite a bad rep in the fitness and health community but we have it for a reason. The morning peak in cortisol makes us get out of bed and get going. A blunted morning cortisol peak is associated with lethargy and depression. Cortisol is elevated during exercise, which helps mobilize fats, increase performance and experience euphoria after and during workouts. Trying to suppress acute elevations of cortisol during exercise, or the normal diurnal rhythm, is foolish. Chronically elevated levels of cortisol, resulting from psychological and/or physiological stress, is another thing and unquestionably bad for your health; it increases protein breakdown, appetite and may lead to depression.
Short-term fasting has no effect on average cortisol levels and this is an area that has been extensively studied in the context of Ramadan fasting. Cortisol typically follows a diurnal variation, which means that its levels peak in the morning at around 8 a.m. and decline in the evenings. What changes during Ramadan is simply the cortisol rhythm, average levels across 24 hours remain unchanged.
In one Ramadan study on rugby players, subjects lost fat and retained muscle very well. And they did despite training in a dehydrated state, without pre-workout or post-workout protein intake, and with a lower protein intake overall nonetheless. Quoting directly from the paper:
"Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4-week period; fat was lost, but lean tissue was conserved..."
"...Plasma urea concentrations actually decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase of endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the decreased protein intake."
In one study on intermittent fasting, the fasting group even saw "significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol." However, this study should be taken with a grain of salt as it had some flaws in study design.
In conclusion, the belief that fasting increases cortisol, which then might cause all kinds of mischief such as muscle loss, has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Origin
Short-term fasting has no effect on average cortisol levels and this is an area that has been extensively studied in the context of Ramadan fasting. Cortisol typically follows a diurnal variation, which means that its levels peak in the morning at around 8 a.m. and decline in the evenings. What changes during Ramadan is simply the cortisol rhythm, average levels across 24 hours remain unchanged.
In one Ramadan study on rugby players, subjects lost fat and retained muscle very well. And they did despite training in a dehydrated state, without pre-workout or post-workout protein intake, and with a lower protein intake overall nonetheless. Quoting directly from the paper:
"Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4-week period; fat was lost, but lean tissue was conserved..."
"...Plasma urea concentrations actually decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase of endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the decreased protein intake."
In one study on intermittent fasting, the fasting group even saw "significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol." However, this study should be taken with a grain of salt as it had some flaws in study design.
In conclusion, the belief that fasting increases cortisol, which then might cause all kinds of mischief such as muscle loss, has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Origin
Prolonged fasting or severe calorie restriction causes elevated baseline levels of cortisol. This occurs in conjunction with depletion of liver glycogen, as cortisol speeds up DNG, which is necessary to maintain blood sugar in absence of dietary carbs, protein, or stored glycogen. Again, it seems someone looked at what happens during starvation and took that to mean that short-term fasting is bad.
9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.
Truth
A large body of research on sports performance during Ramadan concludes that aerobic activities, such as 60 minutes of running, has a small yet significant negative impact on performance. A very large confounder here is dehydration, as Ramadan fasting involves fluid restriction. That said, anaerobic performance, such as weight training, is much less impacted.
However, more relevant and telling studies, which don't involve fluid restriction, show that strength and lower intensity endurance training is unaffected - even after 3.5 days of fasting. New research on fasted training supports this. If you read my review of that study, you'll see that the only parameter the fed group did better on was improvements in V02max, which is likely explained by the fact that the carbs allowed them to train at a higher intensity. However, note the other interesting results obtained in the fasted group. Also note that a review I did of another fasted endurance training study showed no negative effect of fasting on endurance or VO2max (quite the contary in fact). This can be explained by the lower intensity.
In conclusion, training in the fasted state does not affect your performance during weight training, which is what most people reading this are interested in. However, training in a completely fasted state is still not something I recommend for optimal progress. Research is quite clear on the benefits of pre-workout and post-workout protein intake for maximizing protein synthesis. For this reason, I suggest supplementing with 10 g BCAA prior to fasted training.
Another weak and frail physique. No wonder. Andreaz does most of his training fasted. Also worth mentioning, Richard Nikoley trained almost exclusively fasted (and basically doubled his deadlift, while losing fat).
Read more about pre-workout protein and fasted training here: "Pre-workout Protein Boosts Metabolism" and "Fasted Training Boosts Muscle Growth?".
Also read: Early Morning Fasted Training
Specific protocols for fasted training are covered in "The Leangains Guide".
Origin
However, more relevant and telling studies, which don't involve fluid restriction, show that strength and lower intensity endurance training is unaffected - even after 3.5 days of fasting. New research on fasted training supports this. If you read my review of that study, you'll see that the only parameter the fed group did better on was improvements in V02max, which is likely explained by the fact that the carbs allowed them to train at a higher intensity. However, note the other interesting results obtained in the fasted group. Also note that a review I did of another fasted endurance training study showed no negative effect of fasting on endurance or VO2max (quite the contary in fact). This can be explained by the lower intensity.
In conclusion, training in the fasted state does not affect your performance during weight training, which is what most people reading this are interested in. However, training in a completely fasted state is still not something I recommend for optimal progress. Research is quite clear on the benefits of pre-workout and post-workout protein intake for maximizing protein synthesis. For this reason, I suggest supplementing with 10 g BCAA prior to fasted training.
Another weak and frail physique. No wonder. Andreaz does most of his training fasted. Also worth mentioning, Richard Nikoley trained almost exclusively fasted (and basically doubled his deadlift, while losing fat).
Read more about pre-workout protein and fasted training here: "Pre-workout Protein Boosts Metabolism" and "Fasted Training Boosts Muscle Growth?".
Also read: Early Morning Fasted Training
Specific protocols for fasted training are covered in "The Leangains Guide".
Origin
It's actually intuitive that a big pre-workout meal would help with performance, so it's not surprising that people have their doubts about training on an empty stomach.
10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."
Truth
10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."
Truth
Also connected to this saying, is the belief that you should reduce carbs in the evening as they will be less likely to be stored as fat. While this might sound good on paper, there's nothing to support it and a lot that shows it to be wrong.
The strongest argument against this are the numerous studies available on body composition and health after and during Ramadan fasting. This meal pattern of regular nightly feasts has a neutral or positive effect on body fat percentage and other health parameters. This is quite an extreme and telling example. People literally gorge on carbs and treats in the middle of the night to no ill effect. And yet, in the bizarre world of bodybuilding and fitness, people worry whether it's OK to eat 50 grams of carbs in their last meal.
If the scientific data on Ramadan fasting aren't enough, there are plenty of other studies showing no effect on weight loss or weight gain from eating later in the day.
In one study comparing two meal patterns, which involved one group eating more calories earlier in the day and one group eating most calories later in the day, more favorable results were found in the group eating large evening meals. While those who ate more in the AM lost more weight, the extra weight was in the form of muscle mass. The late evening eaters conserved muscle mass better, which resulted in a larger drop in body fat percentage.
Origin
The strongest argument against this are the numerous studies available on body composition and health after and during Ramadan fasting. This meal pattern of regular nightly feasts has a neutral or positive effect on body fat percentage and other health parameters. This is quite an extreme and telling example. People literally gorge on carbs and treats in the middle of the night to no ill effect. And yet, in the bizarre world of bodybuilding and fitness, people worry whether it's OK to eat 50 grams of carbs in their last meal.
If the scientific data on Ramadan fasting aren't enough, there are plenty of other studies showing no effect on weight loss or weight gain from eating later in the day.
In one study comparing two meal patterns, which involved one group eating more calories earlier in the day and one group eating most calories later in the day, more favorable results were found in the group eating large evening meals. While those who ate more in the AM lost more weight, the extra weight was in the form of muscle mass. The late evening eaters conserved muscle mass better, which resulted in a larger drop in body fat percentage.
Origin
Just like breakfast skipping is associated with higher body weights in the general population, you will find associations with late night eating and higher body weights. If you have been reading this far, you'll understand the logical fallacy of saying that late night eating must cause weight gain based on such studies. People who engage in late night eating, such as snacking in front of the TV, are likely to weigh more than others. It's not the fact that they are eating later in the day that causes weight gain, it's their lifestyle. No controlled studies show larger evening meals affect body composition negatively in comparison to meals eaten earlier in the day.
Sometimes studies on shift workers are cited to claim that late night eating is bad. These are all uncontrolled (in terms of calorie intake) and observational studies confounded by the fact that shift work has an independent and negative effect on some health parameters like glucose tolerance and blood lipids. Keep this in mind. Context is always relevant.
While I normally don't cite studies on animals, Science Daily featured an article dispelling the late-night eating myth based on findings on rhesus monkeys. It's worth citing since monkeys are metabolically closer to humans than rodents.
I should have written this article post a long time ago. Would have saved me tons of time.
If you found this worthwhile reading, I'd appreciate if you could refer those unlucky people, who have been mislead into believing some of the junk that's out there, to this article. Based on my own and others' experiences, these false beliefs lead many into an obsessive dietary pattern, which can do a lot of harm to your physical and psychological well-being. Let's try to put an end to that and save people from such misery.
Sometimes studies on shift workers are cited to claim that late night eating is bad. These are all uncontrolled (in terms of calorie intake) and observational studies confounded by the fact that shift work has an independent and negative effect on some health parameters like glucose tolerance and blood lipids. Keep this in mind. Context is always relevant.
While I normally don't cite studies on animals, Science Daily featured an article dispelling the late-night eating myth based on findings on rhesus monkeys. It's worth citing since monkeys are metabolically closer to humans than rodents.
I should have written this article post a long time ago. Would have saved me tons of time.
If you found this worthwhile reading, I'd appreciate if you could refer those unlucky people, who have been mislead into believing some of the junk that's out there, to this article. Based on my own and others' experiences, these false beliefs lead many into an obsessive dietary pattern, which can do a lot of harm to your physical and psychological well-being. Let's try to put an end to that and save people from such misery.
November 4th Addendum
First of all, I appreciate the support and help with spreading this article around. I’ve received dozens of emails from people who’ve told me that this was a great eye opener for them; a seed for a new way of critical thinking – in place of blind acceptance of these dubious claims that are often made. So for those who have assisted me in the fight against broscience and diet myths, thanks. Good karma will come your way.
As I read through the article I didn’t find anything that needed to be clarified further or worth changing. Well, nothing that would change the conclusions at least. Since I like this stuff I could easily devote a full article to each one of the different myths and delve deeper into the nuances and methodological problems that plague some of the widely cited data from which they are born. But this article is already long enough as it is.
However, I do have a few addendums I’d like to make. I’ve added them here, so those who didn’t read the article when it first appeared have to sift through it again.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
One of the most ridiculous arguments against a low (or should I say normal?) meal frequency is the one of sumo wrestlers eating habits. Since sumo wrestlers eat two times a day it must be the best way to get fat and exactly what you shouldn’t be doing for fat loss, or so the logic goes. I wouldn’t have blamed anyone for bringing this argument into the discussion 34 years ago – because it was actually what some researchers believed at that time.
The methods and logic used to arrive at such a conclusion was completely retarded. For example, as a “control group” they used healthy Japanese males weighing 105-130 lbs eating three meals a day. Brilliant. It’s fair to say that nutritional science and research wasn't exactly stellar at that time (Ancel Keys anyone?) but this “study” was terrible even by medieval standards. Yes, it must be meal frequency that’s to blame. Never mind the 5000+ calories consumed on a daily basis.
The traditional dish consumed by sumo wrestlers, Chankonabe, is actually not bad at all in terms of calorie density and food composition. Seems it’s even popular among thin Japanese women. However, since Chankonabe is so deeply entrenched into sumo culture, wrestlers will only count a dish served with Chankonabe as a meal. Snacks eaten in between the two daily Chankonabe meals, which are events that are treated like rituals of great importance, simply aren’t considered as meals or reported as such. This quote is pretty telling: “…I eat hamburgers and foods I purchase at convenience stores as snacks.” (From "Sumo meal now what the petite eat.")
I found the tidbit about Chankonabe tradition interesting, but it's also one very big confounder that was not considered in that old worthless study. The reported mean intake of the wrestlers, 5100-5600 kcal is quite a lot for a 230 lb male (average weight in the study,) but considering the daily training sumo wrestlers go through, it’s certainly not a mind boggling amount. It’s safe to say that calorie intake was probably significantly higher given the exclusion of snacks. There was no tracking of the sumo wrestlers diet by the researchers. It's amazing that this study passed its peer review.
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
I forgot to mention one critical study that often comes up in the context of a high meal frequency being beneficial when dieting. In “Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.” it was found that boxers eating two meals a day on a 1200-calorie diet lost more muscle than the six-meal-group. There are many errors with this conclusion. Lyle McDonald summarized them nicely:
“In this study, boxers were given either 2 or 6 meals per day with identical protein and calories and examined for lean body mass lost; the 2 meal per day group lost more lean body mass (note: both groups lost lean body mass, the 2 meal per day group simply lost more). Aha, higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. Well, not exactly.
In that study, boxers were put on low calories and then an inadequate amount of liquid protein was given to both groups and the meals were divided up into 2 or 6 meals. But the study design was pretty crappy and I want to look at a few reasons why I think that.
First and foremost, a 2 vs. 6 meal per day comparison isn’t realistic. As discussed in The Protein Book, a typical whole food meal will only maintain an anabolic state for 5-6 hours, with only 2 meals per day, that’s simply too long between meals and three vs. six meals would have been far more realistic (I would note that the IF’ing folks are doing just fine not eating for 16 hours per day).
Additionally is the use of a liquid protein that confounds things even more. Liquids digest that much more quickly than solid foods so the study was basically set up to fail for the low meal frequency group. They were given an inadequate amount of rapidly digesting liquid protein too infrequently to spare muscle loss. But what if they had been given sufficient amounts of solid protein (e.g. 1.5 g/lb lean body mass) at those same intervals? The results would have been completely different.
As discussed in The Protein Book in some detail, meal frequency only really matters when protein intake is inadequate in the first place. Under those conditions, a higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. But when protein intake is adequate in the first place (and again that usually means 1.5 g/lb lean body mass for lean dieters), meal frequency makes no difference. And that’s why the boxer study is meaningless so far as I’m concerned. An inadequate amount of liquid protein given twice per day is nothing like how folks should be dieting in the first place.”
From: “Meal Frequency and Mass Gains.”
So in summary, a low calorie intake coupled with an inadequate amount of liquid protein. Liquid protein is rapidly absorbed. This would leave the low meal frequency-group without dietary protein available in between meals, causing DNG, de novo gluconeogenesis, of endogenous protein stores (muscle). The large energy deficit and leanness of the boxers are also factors to consider.
None of this is apparent if you look at the abstract of the study; no protein intake or protein type is mentioned. Details that are critical to know in this context.
I should also point out that I was wrong about the origins of this myth which several people have pointed out. This is what Lyle McDonald wrote in comments:
“The 30 g/meal thing has been around for decades, much older than the 1997 paper. A few gut hunches on where it came from.
1. Marketing: I base this on the fact that the value has changed over the years. When Met-RX sold products with 30 grams protein, 30 g/meal was the cutoff. When they moved to 42 g/meal, 42 grams was the cutoff. Weider probably did it before then.
2. Bodybuilders looking to rationalize their desire to eat lots of mini-meals after the fact. So take an average male bodybuilder, 180 lbs eating 1 g/lb who has decided that 6 meals/day is optimal and....
3. Even there, I think Gironda had written this. It probably came out of some bullshit paper in the 50's that was taken out of context and just got repeated long enough to become dogmatic truth.”
So that’s that.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
A new study on breakfast and health came out a few weeks ago. It brings nothing new to the table; the conclusions drawn are similar to that of older studies that found correlations between body weight and breakfast skipping.
However, since it’s such a beautiful example of everything that is wrong with epidemiology, I will devote a separate post to it, instead of dissecting it in this article, which is long enough as it is. I will have a detailed analysis up soon. Not because I believe that I need to make my point any clearer, but because it will be a lesson in critical thinking.
My biggest frustration
Unfortunately, while this article might have opened a few people’s eyes, I fear that it might be for naught when it comes to the great majority. At least for the mainstream crowd who prefers anecdotes and muscle magazines over science-based articles such as this one. Just have a look at the comments in this thread on comedian Joe Rogan’s forum:
“He 'debunked' those ideas by his own logic and his interpretation of various studies. It wasn't very convincing.”
The only reason it wasn’t convincing enough for this clown was that he could not understand the abstracts my links pointed to. That’s assuming he even took the time to read the article (likelihood: 0.01%).
However, I’m not surprised. The Average Joe (or should I say "Average Bro"?) seems to think everything is up for “interpretation,” which is a load of bullshit. There are objective truths to be found if you look for them. But finding them takes time, requires some effort. Most people shy away from it. Getting spoon-fed is more comfortable. That's OK, because not everyone wants to read some basic nutrition and physiology textbooks. But at least be humble enough to understand that your opinion is not one that you have formed on your own.
As i see it, the problem is twofold in the sense that outliers, the majority of which have severe methodological flaws, often get all of the attention (i.e. the boxers study). The other problem is that many accepted “truths” are based on the conclusions drawn from correlational studies (i.e. meal frequency and breakfast skipping). This is what trickles down and is presented to the mainstream and they swallow it; hook, line, and sinker.
And even then, when the mass media for once debunks a myth, some people just cover their ears and go "lalalala," saying things like:
“I just read it. I'm still not buying it though.”
From the Joe Rogan forum thread, in response to the New York Times article that debunked the meal frequency myth. What a sheep.
There are plenty of more comments along those lines. Makes for some half-decent entertainment. For someone stranded on an abandoned island that is. Note that no one presented evidence that contradicted this article and the conclusions I have presented. Critique is fine but not when it cannot be backed by anything else than gym lore. Fortunately, some people are smarter than that.
This is my biggest frustration with this industry. Those that scream loud enough win - the supplement companies, mass media "health experts" and diet gurus with Magic Pills and Secret Methods to sell.
Someone who is unfamiliar with my background may easily mistake me and my writings for the latter and believe I have presented evidence that would somehow favor my methods, which I have not. This is unfortunate but understandable since almost everyone else in this industry tends to do it. It leads to much confusion as laypersons think everyone is trying to sell them something. For them, finding objective facts is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
But remember: never once have I said, or claimed, that I believe everyone needs to convert to intermittent fasting - or even that it is proven to be superior to a regular healthy diet. The research surrounding intermittent fasting is very interesting but it's too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
I am still of the opinion that the best diet is the one you can stick to in the long term. However, the decision should be based on personal preference and not neurotic adherence to a diet built on faulty and bad science.
Labels:
Articles,
Diet Mythology,
Fasted Training,
Fat Loss,
Intermittent Fasting Primer,
Research
|
200
comments
200
comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe in a Reader
Posts
All Comments
FeedBurner FeedCount
Recommended Reading
Lame Title, Good Book
Recommended Reading
Awesome Recipes for The Paleo Diet
>Recommended Reading
Fat Loss Made Easy
Great Interval Timer
